Violation of principles of natural justice, appointment of Enquiry Officer against the Rules, and disproportionate punishment

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for hearing for final disposal at the admission stage.

2. Petitioner is an Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Chalisgaon, constituted as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963.

3. Facts in nutshell are that respondent No.4 was recruited as Secretary of the petitioner APMC vide order dated 2nd January, 2016. Respondent No.4 indulged in misconduct and committed grave illegalities. Therefore, petitioner issued show cause notice dated 31st March, 2018 and sought explanation of respondent No.4. The charges levelled against respondent No.4 are (i) in regards to the non-renewal of weight scale and illegal recovery of fines, (ii) without permission of the Chairman and Directors, withdrawal of amount of Rs.1,12,368/- towards difference in pay scale, (iii) recovery of fines for the weight scale from the pocket of respondent No.4, (iv) deficiencies in the Audit Report for the year 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, which were conducted during his tenure and those deficiencies were not removed on time and exhibited negligence in his duties. Respondent No.4 tendered reply which was found unsatisfactory and therefore, respondent No.4 was placed under suspension vide order dated 16th April, 2018.

4. According to the petitioner, the charges levelled against respondent no.4 are serious. Therefore, petitioner decided to hold departmental enquiry against respondent No.4. Accordingly, on 27th April, 2018, charge-sheet was served on respondent No.4 and twelve charges were levelled against him. Respondent No.4 fled reply dated 4th May, 2018 vide which he denied the charges. Petitioner appointed Enquiry Officer vide order dated 30th May, 2018.

5. Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry in free and fair manner by following principles of natural justice. Respondent No.4 was given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and was also given opportunity to lead the evidence. The petitioner APMC was represented by its employee. Respondent No.4 represented himself before the Enquiry Officer. Enquiry Officer found that charges at Sr. Nos.1 to 6 and 9 were proved. Accordingly, Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 31st July, 2018. Respondent No.4 was served with the copy of the enquiry report on 6th August, 2018. Respondent No.4 was called upon to give his explanation. Respondent No.4 tendered his explanation on 20th August, 2018. According to the petitioner, charges against respondent No.4 were serious and therefore, petitioner decided to terminate the services of respondent No.4. Accordingly, his services were terminated by order dated 1st September, 2018.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.4 preferred appeal bearing No.111 of 2018 before the learned Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik. The learned Joint Registrar, respondent No.3, found that the enquiry was conducted in free and fair manner. Principles of natural justice were followed and respondent No.4 was given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Respondent No.3 by its Judgment and order dated 13th May, 2019 was pleased to reject the appeal fled by respondent No.4.

7. Respondent No.4, being aggrieved by the order dated 13th May, 2019, preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Minister, Cooperation, Textile and Marketing Department, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. The Hon’ble Minister was pleased to allow the appeal by his Judgment and order dated 14th October, 2021 and thereby quashed and set aside the order passed by the Enquiry Officer and confirmed by respondent No.3. This order is impugned in this writ petition.

8. Respondent No.4 fled affidavit-in-reply. He denied all the charges levelled against him. According to respondent No.4, the Enquiry Officer appointed by the petitioner was an Advocate, who conducted the enquiry and submitted the report. During the pendency of the enquiry, respondent No.4 m